Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 191 posts

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#101

Post by barnesto »

hackyhacky wrote: post #82
barnesto wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said the poster who mostly likely never served a day in the military or read one word from S&S. I've done both. More than once, actually. Both the Military Times and S&S suffer from the same bias as MSM. One down, potentially, and one to go in my mind. I also don't think taxpayer money should be going to VOA or PBS or NPR for the very same reasons. And don't think most of the military doesn't feel the same way. Most…

Do you have any evidence of that bias? Or are you of the opinion that any criticism of the President's policies is necessarily biased and therefore, in your words, BS?

Why do you assume my opinion of Stars and Stripes has anything to do with the criticism of the current administration?

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#102

Post by ahelwer »

eesmith wrote: post #81
ahelwer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know what you're arguing about here. To repeat myself, if I overestimated how much they paid, then it's even more people whose contributions are incinerated. Yay for my original point I guess?

I think the argument is that simple numbers don't really mean much, especially when misrepresented. If you have an point to make, it should be correct. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... says that payroll taxes and corporate income tax (in 2015) together are about the same contribution to federal income as individual income taxes, which puts a factor of 2 the other way in your estimate.

Why are other source of government income relevant here?

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#103

Post by liability »

matt_kantor wrote: post #74
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article did not mention that they covered a narrative that Trump disliked. Where did you get that from?

> https://www.stripes.com/news/us/trump-denies-reports-that-he... > A few days ago they also ran a story about a poll showing Trump lagging Biden among the military. Thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24375564

It may well be retaliatory, but not for that specific article/poll. The Trump administration proposed defunding Stars and Stripes back in February.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/the-stars-...

> In February, the Trump administration proposed eliminating all of the publication’s federal support in 2021. That’s more than $15 million a year, about half its budget. “I can’t think of a graver threat to its independence,” the paper’s ombudsman, Ernie Gates, told me recently. “That’s a fatal cut.”

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#104

Post by hackyhacky »

barnesto wrote: post #98
hackyhacky wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, do you think that taxpayer money should go towards campaign events for the President?

Are you a White House correspondent? Your line of questions sounds familiar.

Sounds like you're trying to ascribe malice to a pretty reasonable question. I'm just trying to understand your position: if taxpayer money should be withheld from what you view as politically biased media, then should it also be withhold from explicitly politically biased campaign events? Seems like it should be, but then again I'd like to hear your opinion.

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#105

Post by gexla »

barnesto wrote: post #75
Finnucane wrote: post #27

"Stars and Stripes embodies that most American of values: the right to speak truth to power." Which is the last the thing current administration wants anyone to be able to do.

Said the poster who mostly likely never served a day in the military or read one word from S&S. I've done both. More than once, actually. Both the Military Times and S&S suffer from the same bias as MSM. One down, potentially, and one to go in my mind. I also don't think taxpayer money should be going to VOA or PBS or NPR for the very same reasons. And don't think most of the military doesn't feel the same way. Most…

> But orange man bad, I get it.

An interesting perspective that people in the military have that civilians don't is that the president is also the commander in chief.

Even if you don't respect the person, you still respect the role.

And this is someone who can send you to war. You can't get any more serious of a link.

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#106

Post by hackyhacky »

barnesto wrote: post #101
hackyhacky wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence of that bias? Or are you of the opinion that any criticism of the President's policies is necessarily biased and therefore, in your words, BS?

Why do you assume my opinion of Stars and Stripes has anything to do with the criticism of the current administration?

Because you used the expression "orange man bad," which is often used by defenders of the current administration to counter what they see as unreasonable criticisms. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.

Can you provide an example of the allegedly biased reporting in S&S?

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#107

Post by barnesto »

hackyhacky wrote: post #94
barnesto wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity? Sounds like you've got your own opinion. A leading question is what they call that, lol. I get my news from MSM, social, and a host of blogs and YouTube channels. Just like everyone else, I imagine. Only difference is I don't limit my sources by their viewpoint or bias. It's rare you find any source of news/information that's not slanted in one way or another. Knowing what everyone has to say about…

I agree: bias is part of human nature, and cannot be fully removed from news. Given that, what's wrong with Stars & Stripes? Also, I think GP question was pretty reasonable. Why are you trying to infer an "agenda"? It makes you look unreasonable. Everyone has their own opinion. It's not a leading question.

What "agenda" would that be? All I said was S&S is biased in my opinion... after having read the periodical on the regular for the last 32 years.

Based on your other questions, I don't think it's me coming off as unreasonable. Your mileage will vary, obviously.

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#108

Post by ch4s3 »

slg wrote: post #69
ch4s3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really have a stake here, and voted for Obama but he and his justice department prosecuted a record number of journalists. To quote the Washington Post "Of the 13 people who have" (ever) "been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for leaking secrets, eight were arrested under Obama's administration"

Anyone have a full list of who they are counting as either the 8 or 13 in that quote? According to Wikipedia, the number of people who have been charged under the espionage act is much higher than 13. For example, there are 52 pages of people convicted under the act.[1] I guess it depends on your definition of "leaking". The relevant dictionary definition of leak is "to give out (information) surreptitiously".[2] Giv…

*For leaking secrets to journalists

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

barnesto wrote: post #75
Finnucane wrote: post #27

"Stars and Stripes embodies that most American of values: the right to speak truth to power." Which is the last the thing current administration wants anyone to be able to do.

Said the poster who mostly likely never served a day in the military or read one word from S&S. I've done both. More than once, actually. Both the Military Times and S&S suffer from the same bias as MSM. One down, potentially, and one to go in my mind. I also don't think taxpayer money should be going to VOA or PBS or NPR for the very same reasons. And don't think most of the military doesn't feel the same way. Most…

> I also don't think taxpayer money should be going to VOA or PBS or NPR for the very same reasons.

VOA is literally a federal government foreign propaganda service that is operated (in theory, mainly as a defensive countermove against hostile government propaganda) to advance US government information interests abroad.

Now, it's usually operated in a standard journalistic manner because the US government has both seen truth as the best the long-term defense against hostile propaganda and seen VOA being seen as trustworthy as the best way to not get target populations to learn to ignore it.

Re: The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down

#110

Post by qqqwerty »

ahelwer wrote: post #65
rjmunro wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

31 people's tax is nothing in a country of 328,000,000 people. Even 1500 people's tax every year, which sounds worse, is still nothing.

No, it isn't nothing. My point is you can't wave away these numbers just by putting them next to a much larger number. These bills ultimately have to be paid, and asking whether a propaganda rag is worth >31 people's lifelong tax contributions every year is a much better framing than "we already incinerate cash, what's a bit more" - that is just utterly terrible reasoning. Try applying it to your own budget and see w…

It is nothing. For example, it is the equivalent of me budgeting for a single cup of coffee for the entire year. The administrative costs of removing that expense would dwarf the expense itself, and could actually result in significantly negative ROI when accounting for opportunity cost (hundreds, if not thousands of alternative opportunities to save more money are being ignored while leadership focuses on this one).
Post reply on HN